Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

For me it's clearly a violation of my rights the second an agent of the state lays a finger on my property without oversight and due process.



That's logic that says your carry-ons can't be searched before boarding a plane --- not "you can be radioactively strip searched" but that no search is reasonable without compelling suspicion.

My point is, there are always competing interests at play, and the question is where we draw the line, and you probably can't draw the line at "a judge has to sign a piece of paper before an LEO can lay a hand on any of your personal property".


If there is no compelling suspicion, why then would a search be needed? Are you saying that we should get rid of the second amendment or change it?

IMO, we certainly should draw the line at "a judge has to sign a piece of paper...". Why would you want to give even more power to law enforcement? Do you generally not feel safe enough or do you just not care because it doesn't really affect you in a significant way?

Before you answer that....Are you one of those people who believes that the war on drugs is a good thing? (i.e. It's not basic intellectual fraud...) Or, are you one of those who think that no government would ever attack themselves or their own people; especially not the US Government? Or, that there are terrorists around every corner waiting to get you?

These are clear indicators to me that you've been brainwashed and if you've answered yes to any of those questions, you can feel free to not respond to any of my questions. Also please accept my apology if I've offended you. If not, I'd love to hear your responses.


The Second Amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms. You should get the numbers right before you throw words like "brainwashing" around in a conversation.

You're thinking of the Fourth Amendment, which says you're to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. And your problem in this argument is the word "reasonable", which the Supreme Court interprets as "conducted in such a way as to balance the state's legitimate interests with the individuals", meaning, "you are not free from all searches just because you're not a suspect".


Right, because the fact that I mistakenly referred to the wrong amendment invalidates my entire point.

And NO, my problem is not with the word reasonable. Your problem is that you want to continue empowering the state to erode your freedom and invade your life.

It has nothing to do with wording. It's all about actions and results.

(EDIT: Anyway, you'd probably get rid of the 2nd amendment too, wouldn't you?)




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: